Statement–Argument — Should Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) be allowed in India’s print media? Arguments: I. Yes. Foreign investment will introduce healthy competition and diffuse advanced technologies and practices that are currently concentrated in a few publications. II. No. Global media houses, with stronger capital and managerial power, may overwhelm weaker Indian outlets, especially the regional press, risking plurality and local viability.

Introduction / Context:
The question weighs liberalisation benefits against media pluralism risks in the print sector. FDI can catalyse technology transfer, capital infusion, and professional standards. Conversely, consolidation pressure could crowd out small and regional voices that sustain linguistic diversity and local accountability.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• India’s print media includes national and regional outlets with uneven access to capital and technology.
• FDI typically brings process, tech, and managerial upgrades but may intensify competition.
• Policy goals include innovation and pluralism.

Concept / Approach:
In statement–argument items, a strong argument is relevant, logically persuasive, and policy-grounded. When two opposing arguments both present legitimate, policy-relevant considerations, the correct evaluation can be “either I or II is strong”.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I (pro-FDI): Highlights efficiency, competition, and technology diffusion—core aims of liberalisation. This is policy-relevant and logically sound.2) Argument II (caution): Emphasises the risk of market dominance affecting regional plurality. Media plurality and diversity are recognised public-interest objectives. This is also policy-relevant and reasoned.3) Because both sides identify legitimate yet competing objectives, each can be considered strong on its own merits, leading to the “either I or II” choice.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many countries balance FDI benefits with caps, cross-ownership limits, or safeguards for local media—evidence that both efficiency and plurality are valid policy concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” ignores plurality risks; “Only II” ignores innovation benefits; “Both” implies simultaneous acceptance without recognising their mutual exclusivity in a yes/no policy; “Neither” dismisses two solid considerations.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating media like a commodity market and overlooking the democratic value of plurality; or, conversely, ignoring consumer and technology gains from investment.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.